Effort would be spent
better cleaning up planet

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

I read the "Skeptics Take on Global Warming" with interest.

Mr. Dukes laid out his arguments well (although he is in danger of being charged with hypocrisy, as a consultant to the chemical industry accusing the proponents of global warming of being sponsored by special interest groups!).
 
Mr. Marquardt's piece is way too outlandish for me and his conspiracy theories were unconvincing, especially couched in such immoderate terms.
 
I am an agnostic. I was impressed by Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear," especially the statistics from the U.N. and other impeccable sources which the author quotes.
 
But I wonder why the world, instead of engaging in this heated argument about if and why the world is warming up, does not turn its attention to cleaning the planet up.
 
Surely it is undeniable that there is unnecessary pollution in abundance. If the push was for a cleaner world — and it worked — perhaps the question of who might be responsible for any global warming would become moot.
 


Scientific proof needed
for global warming views

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Why is it that lefties never argue facts but instead love to besmirch their opponents’ character?

Here’s an example by Mr. H. Franz in Tuesday’s A.M. Costa Rica: “… Mr. Axel Marquardt, a fellow denier, is scarcely worthy of comment since he obviously belongs to that paranoid fraternity of conspiracy buffs.  His entire op-ed piece is rife with quasi hysterical, unscientific conjecture and hackneyed pap for the uninformed.” Well, Mr. Franz, that diatribe certainly helped clear the air about the scientific facts, didn’t it? If you have the facts as to why his writing is “quasi-hysterical” and “unscientific” why don’t you share them?

Contrary to Mr. H. Franz’ assertion that the debate is over, the skeptics regarding human causes of global warming have just begun to blow the hell out of the voodoo scientific theories of the social engineers regarding this topic. You can jump up and down all you want, Mr. F., like a petulant 6 year old, insisting the debate is over, but it isn’t, amigo, and it shouldn’t be.

Making assertions that a scientific fact is so does not make it so. It requires postulates, unbiased research and experimentation leading to logical conclusions. Where is the unbiased research for the globalwarming community? The unadulterated data?

I don’t know whether or not Mr. Dukes is factually and scientifically correct in all the assertions he makes, but as a scientifically trained person myself, I find his postulates more logical than Al Gore’s (you don’t think Al’s driving agenda might be money from cornering the market on carbon credits, do you?) or conclusions drawn by a real estate salesman. Ice does have a lower specific gravity than water; melting it in water will shrink the amount of total volume.

Does this apply to Antarctica?  I don’t know. Let’s discuss, but Mr. Dukes point about ice and water is scientifically correct.

Over 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from natural sources (decomposition of vegetation and faults/fissures on the ocean floor). What part of that remaining 10 percent becomes the trigger to cause human induced global warming, 2, 4 ,6, 8 10? Where is the experimentation that supports that conclusion?

Over 93 percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Would you like to challenge that fact, Mr. F., or shall we start drafting legislation to regulate water vapor?

Personally I think the global warming movement (read anti-business, anti-industry movement) is the latest form of Y2K mischief and the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind since Elizabeth I’s virginity.